Artificial Memories

Regarding the "weak resist" column, T2 would be clearer with just their main two vulnerabilities.

So currently for a Basilisk, it lists Exp, Em and Kin. They all seem equal, it would read like em or kin wouldn't matter.It would be a lot clearer with something like... "EM > Exp" to state the trend. (And Kin > Exp for minmatar, Exp > Em for gallente, Therm > Em for Amarr Tech 2)

It lists the drone bay, but not the bandwidth. For examples, 50 on the brutix, 75 on the astarte, yet they both have a 50 bandwidth. "50" for brutix and "50+" for astarte (having same bandwidth and backup drones) would say more.

The "U" row could also state "hardpoints/total highslots", would make a difference especially showing for bhaals and abaddons/rokhs, with the bhaal showing 3 utility highs when it usually uses its 4 hardpoints for even more neuts on a regular basis, and both abaddons/rokhs are like swiss army knifes for respective fleets when held near a carrier, reffitting their 8 highslots to neuts or smartbombs quite frequently.So "4/7" for a bhaal, or "8/8" for the other two. If the bhaal shoots lasers at you, it most likely has 3 bonused neuts.

I improved the tooltip (on "Resis") a little bit how to read the values (and hope that it is good enough to understand). But you are right, a "<" is better understandable...

I show 3 values, because in reality all 3 resistance/EHP values are often nearly the same and if the third shown is "Kin", a ship with "Kin" damage bonus should use it. If "Kin" is not shown (because it is the highest resistance) it might be more effective to use another missile type.

A d-scan result can contain friend and foe. To get an approximation of the real amount of enemies, you can now subtract ships of a fleet composition from a d-scan (only fleet members/ships that are in same solar system and in space are included in the calculation). You can also share or load subtracted data (the underlying fleet composition will not be shared or loaded because of information hiding).

For cleaning a d-scan you need a fleet composition and a d-scan that contains the solar system name (the solar system name can be determined if you trust the website in in-game browser or at least one celestial body or station is shown in your d-scan).

When you paste a (or load a shared) fleet composition, check "Clean d-scan" and also paste a d-scan, the tool will estimate the "real" numbers. You can repeatedly paste updated data as long this option is checked.

This feature does not consider standings of d-scan entries. If there are multiple friendly fleets in solar system or the fleets are moving fast and pasted data hasn't been updated "Clean d-scan" visualization is less meaningful.

Note:

For copying a fleet composition you have to have the appropriate access right. If you have it, you can click on the icon in "Fleet" tab → "Show Fleet Composition" → Ctrl + A in the "Fleet composition" window → Ctrl + C and paste it into Inf[l]ight.

Sample calculation:

20 Tempests on d-scan. 15 Tempests are in your fleet, but only 10 of them are in same system and ...

10 of them are in d-scan range = The result table will show the correct amount of 10 "possibly opponent" Tempests.

5 of them are in d-scan range = The result table will show at least 10 "possibly opponent" Tempests and not the correct amount of 15.

0 of them are in d-scan range = The result table will show at least 10 "possibly opponent" Tempests and not the correct amount of 20.

Nobody in Local

Of Sound Mind

Could you detail how you calculate the resists?For example, the Harbinger has as base stats expl,kin,ther,em on the armor resists, but on the website actually is the,kin,exp(,em).The confessor also has two resists swappped: the,em,kin instead of the,kin,em.

I want to show the effective (weakest) resistances (determined on basis of a large EFT fittings "database" with commonly used fittings). So in some cases the natural resistance hole is not the weakest in my sheet, because the ship has the slots (and CPU or PG) to close that hole without losing to much of the fitting objective. Of course it is a subjective value, but in many cases it suits quite accurately.

Maybe I should change the name from "resistance" to "resistance to shoot at", because I calculate the EHP of a ship (combined shield and armor values). So for the Confessor the ARMOR resistances are indeed THE, KIN, EM (and many popular fits have EHP/resistance in that order) but in my opinion/EFT-fits-db the average minimal EHP/resistance is THE, EM, KIN. But I am open to change that values if someone tells me, that I am talking bulls*it because of XYZ! Often enough the first three or the second and third EHP/resistance are very close together so the resistances order doesn't matter that much anyway.

About the Harbinger values: When I determined the resistances values, I weighted shield fitted fleet fits too high. Shield Harbingers are not that popular, so I will edit the values. Thanks for pointing it out!

Maybe I would avoid confusions if I would show the (shield/armor specific) base resistances instead, but I think in general the current subjective values are more helpful...

I want to show the effective (weakest) resistances (determined on basis of a large EFT fittings "database" with commonly used fittings). So in some cases the natural resistance hole is not the weakest in my sheet, because the ship has the slots (and CPU or PG) to close that hole without losing to much of the fitting objective. Of course it is a subjective value, but in many cases it suits quite accurately.

Maybe I should change the name from "resistance" to "resistance to shoot at", because I calculate the EHP of a ship (combined shield and armor values). So for the Confessor the ARMOR resistances are indeed THE, KIN, EM (and many popular fits have EHP/resistance in that order) but in my opinion/EFT-fits-db the average minimal EHP/resistance is THE, EM, KIN. But I am open to change that values if someone tells me, that I am talking bulls*it because of XYZ! Often enough the first three or the second and third EHP/resistance are very close together so the resistances order doesn't matter that much anyway.

About the Harbinger values: When I determined the resistances values, I weighted shield fitted fleet fits too high. Shield Harbingers are not that popular, so I will edit the values. Thanks for pointing it out!

Maybe I would avoid confusions if I would show the (shield/armor specific) base resistances instead, but I think in general the current subjective values are more helpful...

In my opinion you can post 'bare' resistance order. The player himself may then decide if he would like to shoot at the normal resist hole or try a secondary or tertiary resist.Also, your average EHP will probably not take into account reppers, which are a significant confounding factor for taking into account shield EHP on an armor ship and vice versa.

Now a big contribution is armor resists if the ship is usually armor tanked, or shield resists if it is shield tanked. If both types of tanks are common you may want to post both resist profiles (if they are very different).